Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Saniks Motors and two others under Art 226 of the Constitution of India and arises in the following circumstances :—

2. The applicants are permits holders of certain buses plying on the Jodhpur, Pali, Sojat, Bar, Beawar route. It appears that there was some inconvenience to the public and the buses of the applicants, which originally terminated at Bar, were allowed to go up to Beawar. It also appears that the permits were countersigned by the Ajmer authorities. There was also another bus service between Bilara and Bar and that was similarly extended for the same reason to Beawar and the permits in that case also were countersigned by the Ajmer authorities. In 1954, however, there was an application by these operators holding permits from Jodhpur to Beawar and Bilara to Beawar to the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur,by which they obtained an order that the extension granted up to Beawar would be subject to the condition that the Jodhpur-Beawar operators will make two daily return trips between Bar and Beawar and Bilara-Bar operators will make one daily return trip between Bar and Beawar. It seems that this caused inconvenience to certain persons who were travelling from | Bilara to Beawar in January, 1955. These persons then tried to find out from the office of the Regional Transport authority, Jodhpur, why all the buses from Bilara to Beawar did not go the whole way. They then came to know of the order of 15th of March 1954, fixing the ratio of 2-1. Thereupon they filed an appeal before the appellate authority against this order and the Appellate authority passed what it calls a stay order in this connection.

3. The present application is to the effect that the persons, who have filed the appeal before the appellate authority, have no locus standi to do so and, therefore, this Court should prohibit the appellate authority from hearing the appeal and from passing any order in that connection. The reliefs claimed in the writ application are not appropriate but the real relief which the applicants desire is that we should prohibit the appellate authority from hearing this appeal and passing any order whatsoever on it.

4. The application is opposed by Mohan Lal and others who have filed the appeal before the appellate authority and their case is that they have right to appeal under sec. 64(b) and (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. Appeals are creations of statute and unless a person can bring himself within the four corners of the statute law prescribing appeals, he cannot go before any appellate authority. In the Motor Vehicles Act, sec. 64 provides for appeals and we are concerned in this case firstly with clause (b) of that section which gives right of appeal to—

"64(b), Any person aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permit or by any variation of the conditions thereof."

6. The argument on behalf of the applicants is that under this clause only a person, whose permit has been revoked or suspended or the conditions of whose permit have been in any way varied, can be an aggrieved person who has the right to appeal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party contends that any person, who feels himself aggrieved by any variation in the conditions of a permit, be he a permit, holder or any member of the public, is entitled to appeal. It is urged that if for example, by a change in the condition of a permit, the number of daily services is reduced from two per day between Jodhpur Beawar to one per day, any member of the public, who is inconvenienced by such a change, has a right to appeal against the change to the appellate authority. We are of opinion that sec. 64(b) is not capable of this wide interpretation. It does not require any argument to come to the conclusion that so far as revocation or suspension of a permits is concerned, the person aggrieved is the person whose permit has been revoked or suspended and it is he alone who can appeal. It will be going too fa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document